Lately, President Obama has been calling for increased taxes on the filthy rich to help balance our nation's ridiculously unbalanced budget, a legacy of ten years of tax cuts for the wealthy and two lengthy wars (not to mention the worst recession since the Great Depression). In fact, he had wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the two highest brackets at the end of 2010, but the greedy Republicans in Congress (showing who they really care about) threatened to filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits and leave millions of struggling Americans high and dry. So Obama capitulated and reluctantly extended the tax cuts for two more years, making the deficit so high that we exceeded the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling a few months ago and we almost defaulted before he was able to persuade Congress to finally raise the ceiling at the eleventh hour.
And now Obama is back to talking tough. But will he finally walk the walk? Let's hope he does, for the sake of over 99% of Americans.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Debt Ceiling Disaster Averted--For Now
On August 2, Congress approved a deal that raises the debt ceiling enough to cover us through 2012 while appointing a bipartisan commission to deal with reducing the deficit in the long run. However, there is currently no real solution on the table. Real solutions would include jacking up taxes on the rich (like they were before Reagan took over), closing corporate tax loopholes, ending the current wasteful wars, cutting our bloated "defense" budget in half, and actually fixing entitlement programs rather than gutting them (like the Republicans) or ignoring the problems (like far too many Democrats these days). The TSAP has repeatedly noted all the ways to fix our budget and economy, but it looks like our advice will not be heeded as long as Americans keep voting for spineless Democrats and crazy Republicans. Wimps to the left of me, crazies to the right--stuck in the middle with you, to paraphrase a popular 1970s song.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
How Bad is Our Economy? Just Ask a Mexican
Take off your rose-colored glasses and sit down. Ready? OK, here's the truth, warts and all:
You know the American economy is doing bad if even Mexican (and other) immigrants won't come here anymore. Just a few years ago, the nation was flooded with a seemingly unstoppable flow of immigration, both legal and illegal, thanks to NAFTA wrecking both countries (while simultaneously enriching the elites in both countries) and Bush being too busy invading and looting other countries to protect our own borders. But once our economy's bubble burst, millions of jobs disappeared--as did the much of the flow of desperate job-seekers from other countries. Of course, there are other factors at work here, such as the declining birth rates in Mexico and other Latin American countries, the non-passage of the amnesty bill, as well as Obama getting marginally tougher (but not nearly tough enough) on rogue employers who would rather exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor than hire native-born Americans at a decent living wage. But the biggest factor, at least in the short term, has been the lack of jobs on this side of the border. Now that's just sad.
Our nation's unemployment rate is still hovering above 9%, over 3 1/2 years after the recession began and fully two years after the recession was supposedly over. Our jobless pseudo-recovery since June 2009 has consistently had an unemployment rate at least double what it was during the "prosperity" of 2005-2007. And for the first time in decades, our unemployment has been higher than Canada's since 2009. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones has made tremendous gains since its low in March 2009, nearly doubling since then and returning essentially to pre-crash levels. And the largest corporations have boasted record profits in 2010 and early 2011, while simultaneously outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries. In other words, it was the best of times (for the filthy rich, mega-corporations, and Wall Street) and the worst of times (for everyone else).
So when does a recession officially become a depression? The old joke is that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, and a depression is when you lose your job. Using that definition, the majority of Americans were in their own personal recession even before the crash of 2008, and now many people are in their own personal depression, all while the elites mock their suffering and do everything they can to avoid (heaven forbid) paying their fair share of taxes. And at least as far as jobs go, while still not quite as bad as the Great Depression, we unfortunately appear to be in an L-shaped recession similar to Japan in the 1990s. And up until the Great Depression, the term "depression" was routinely applied to less severe economic contractions (it was actually a euphemism back then to call it such). Either way, it really seems to be all about semantics as far as the politicians are concerned.
You know the American economy is doing bad if even Mexican (and other) immigrants won't come here anymore. Just a few years ago, the nation was flooded with a seemingly unstoppable flow of immigration, both legal and illegal, thanks to NAFTA wrecking both countries (while simultaneously enriching the elites in both countries) and Bush being too busy invading and looting other countries to protect our own borders. But once our economy's bubble burst, millions of jobs disappeared--as did the much of the flow of desperate job-seekers from other countries. Of course, there are other factors at work here, such as the declining birth rates in Mexico and other Latin American countries, the non-passage of the amnesty bill, as well as Obama getting marginally tougher (but not nearly tough enough) on rogue employers who would rather exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor than hire native-born Americans at a decent living wage. But the biggest factor, at least in the short term, has been the lack of jobs on this side of the border. Now that's just sad.
Our nation's unemployment rate is still hovering above 9%, over 3 1/2 years after the recession began and fully two years after the recession was supposedly over. Our jobless pseudo-recovery since June 2009 has consistently had an unemployment rate at least double what it was during the "prosperity" of 2005-2007. And for the first time in decades, our unemployment has been higher than Canada's since 2009. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones has made tremendous gains since its low in March 2009, nearly doubling since then and returning essentially to pre-crash levels. And the largest corporations have boasted record profits in 2010 and early 2011, while simultaneously outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries. In other words, it was the best of times (for the filthy rich, mega-corporations, and Wall Street) and the worst of times (for everyone else).
So when does a recession officially become a depression? The old joke is that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, and a depression is when you lose your job. Using that definition, the majority of Americans were in their own personal recession even before the crash of 2008, and now many people are in their own personal depression, all while the elites mock their suffering and do everything they can to avoid (heaven forbid) paying their fair share of taxes. And at least as far as jobs go, while still not quite as bad as the Great Depression, we unfortunately appear to be in an L-shaped recession similar to Japan in the 1990s. And up until the Great Depression, the term "depression" was routinely applied to less severe economic contractions (it was actually a euphemism back then to call it such). Either way, it really seems to be all about semantics as far as the politicians are concerned.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Clock is Still Ticking
The President and Congress still have not agreed on the issue of the debt ceiling. As we have noted before, failure to raise the ceiling by August 2 will all but guarantee a default, which will be catastrophic. And the Republicans know it, that's why they would never dream of doing such a thing during a Republican presidency--it's painfully obvious who the American people will blame if such a crisis ever did unfold, and it's not Congress that will take the heat.
To John Boehner and the Republicans: STOP PLAYING CHICKEN WITH THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW! Why are you so afraid of you and your uber-rich buddies paying somewhat higher taxes that you would be willing to either a) risk default on the debt, which hurts all Americans, or b) dismantle the social safety net, which hurts the most vulnerable Americans? And God forbid we stop waging pointless wars of aggression across the globe, of course.
To President Obama: If the Republicans want to play hardball, do your Constitutional duty and ignore the ceiling for the time being in order to prevent a default. They are throwing a tantrum at the very idea of having to pay their fair share of taxes--don't give into their demands. You have already made more than enough concessions to them as it is, and when you give them an inch, they take a mile. It's up to YOU to be the adult among the overgrown children we so foolishly elected in 2010. Oh yeah, and by the way, END ALL OF THE WARS by December. All of them. That should save a fortune.
To John Boehner and the Republicans: STOP PLAYING CHICKEN WITH THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW! Why are you so afraid of you and your uber-rich buddies paying somewhat higher taxes that you would be willing to either a) risk default on the debt, which hurts all Americans, or b) dismantle the social safety net, which hurts the most vulnerable Americans? And God forbid we stop waging pointless wars of aggression across the globe, of course.
To President Obama: If the Republicans want to play hardball, do your Constitutional duty and ignore the ceiling for the time being in order to prevent a default. They are throwing a tantrum at the very idea of having to pay their fair share of taxes--don't give into their demands. You have already made more than enough concessions to them as it is, and when you give them an inch, they take a mile. It's up to YOU to be the adult among the overgrown children we so foolishly elected in 2010. Oh yeah, and by the way, END ALL OF THE WARS by December. All of them. That should save a fortune.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Happy Fourth of July!
Today, our great nation is 235 years old. Actually it is older than that, but we did not declare independence from Britain until July 4, 1776. Happy Birthday America!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Americans Are Having Fewer Kids
The latest news from the 2010 Census shows that, across the board, Americans are having fewer children than they did ten years prior. While some folks may view that as something to fear, we at the True Spirit of America Party consider this to be good news. And it couldn't come soon enough.
We have already noted in the past that overpopulation is NOT a myth--it is (or soon will be) a reality that we need to deal with, or it will deal with us in ways we probably won't like. It is the elephant in the Volkswagen than no one wants to talk about, but ignoring it will not make it go away. The latest projections show that if current demographic trends continue, the world's population (which is already nearly 7 billion and counting) will grow to a whopping 9.3 billion (or possibly even as high as 10.6 billion) by 2050. From 2050 to 2100, the population would either decline to 6.2 billion or continue growing to 15.8 billion, depending on only a relatively small difference in the world's total fertility rate. It truly boggles the mind how the Earth can sustain 9 billion people, let alone nearly 16 billion, when several credible sources say that we have already exceeded the planet's long-term carrying capacity many years ago. Let that sink in for a minute or two.
In 2008, the USA alone was predicted to grow to as high as 438 million people by 2050. Most of that growth would be due to immigration, but a significant chunk would be due to fertility, including the historically higher fertility of immigrants. Though with current reductions in fertility and slowing of immigration (both likely due to the severe recession), if persistent, would reduce that forecast number significantly, even the lowest projections predict a sizeable increase in the population to over 350 million by then nonetheless. And despite being only 5% of the world's population, we consume 25% of the world's natural resources, so any further increase in the number of Americans has much more of an impact than the same number increase in, say, a typical Third or Fourth World country. But ultimately, there is no country that can realistically keep growing and growing forever without adverse consequences. And even if we manage to cut our per-capita consumption in half, allowing the population to subsequently double will completely negate any progress made, despite a reduced standard of living.
Bottom line: the current trend toward lower fertility ought to continue, and is good news overall, but we still really need to be careful how many more immigrants we let into our already overpopulated nation of 308 million and counting. We ignore the elephant in the Volkswagen at our own peril.
We have already noted in the past that overpopulation is NOT a myth--it is (or soon will be) a reality that we need to deal with, or it will deal with us in ways we probably won't like. It is the elephant in the Volkswagen than no one wants to talk about, but ignoring it will not make it go away. The latest projections show that if current demographic trends continue, the world's population (which is already nearly 7 billion and counting) will grow to a whopping 9.3 billion (or possibly even as high as 10.6 billion) by 2050. From 2050 to 2100, the population would either decline to 6.2 billion or continue growing to 15.8 billion, depending on only a relatively small difference in the world's total fertility rate. It truly boggles the mind how the Earth can sustain 9 billion people, let alone nearly 16 billion, when several credible sources say that we have already exceeded the planet's long-term carrying capacity many years ago. Let that sink in for a minute or two.
In 2008, the USA alone was predicted to grow to as high as 438 million people by 2050. Most of that growth would be due to immigration, but a significant chunk would be due to fertility, including the historically higher fertility of immigrants. Though with current reductions in fertility and slowing of immigration (both likely due to the severe recession), if persistent, would reduce that forecast number significantly, even the lowest projections predict a sizeable increase in the population to over 350 million by then nonetheless. And despite being only 5% of the world's population, we consume 25% of the world's natural resources, so any further increase in the number of Americans has much more of an impact than the same number increase in, say, a typical Third or Fourth World country. But ultimately, there is no country that can realistically keep growing and growing forever without adverse consequences. And even if we manage to cut our per-capita consumption in half, allowing the population to subsequently double will completely negate any progress made, despite a reduced standard of living.
Bottom line: the current trend toward lower fertility ought to continue, and is good news overall, but we still really need to be careful how many more immigrants we let into our already overpopulated nation of 308 million and counting. We ignore the elephant in the Volkswagen at our own peril.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Clock is Ticking
Just recently, the latest attempt to raise the national debt ceiling failed. We have already reached the debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion last month, and there is fear that if we don't raise it by August 2, the nation will default, which would be catastrophic to our already weak economy. The reason is that most of the money in the budget has already been committed when the budget was approved in March, which unfortunately requires more borrowing just to pay the interest on the debt, let alone everything else in the budget. The government can trim a little here and there with accounting tricks for now to prevent a default, but that can only last for so long.
We at the TSAP were against raising the debt ceiling back in January, but that was before the budget was passed and the money already committed. Now, however, we denounce Boehner and the Republicans' asinine and ideological attempt at playing chicken with our nation's finances, for very obvious reasons. Now that both parties have already ordered their dinner and ate most of it, one party decides to dine and dash--only in this case it's not just a restaurant but the entire nation. And the penalty would be far worse than a mere few hours of washing dishes.
The only way out of this, ironically, is to raise the ceiling just enough to get through the rest of the fiscal year (e.g. to about $15 trillion), but tie it to significant tax hikes and spending cuts. These would include:
Tax Hikes
We at the TSAP were against raising the debt ceiling back in January, but that was before the budget was passed and the money already committed. Now, however, we denounce Boehner and the Republicans' asinine and ideological attempt at playing chicken with our nation's finances, for very obvious reasons. Now that both parties have already ordered their dinner and ate most of it, one party decides to dine and dash--only in this case it's not just a restaurant but the entire nation. And the penalty would be far worse than a mere few hours of washing dishes.
The only way out of this, ironically, is to raise the ceiling just enough to get through the rest of the fiscal year (e.g. to about $15 trillion), but tie it to significant tax hikes and spending cuts. These would include:
Tax Hikes
- End the Bush tax cuts immediately for the top two brackets, and the rest of them effective one or two years later.
- Create a new 50% bracket at $1 million and up immediately, and possibly even a 60% or greater one at $10 million.
- Close ALL loopholes in the tax code that benefit those with high incomes.
- No more tax breaks or loopholes for large corporations--absolutely NONE.
- Remove the tax cap on Social Security immediately, so everyone pays their fair share.
- Pass a financial transactions tax of 0.25%.
- Raise the alcohol taxes and other excise taxes significantly.
- Raise the gas tax by a penny a week until it is $1.00 greater than it is now.
- Consider significant tariffs on imports from countries where workers are paid next to nothing.
- End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a complete withdrawal by December 31, 2011 (Iraq) and no later than July 1, 2012 (Afghanistan).
- Get out of Libya as soon as Gaddafi is captured or killed, if not sooner.
- Cut the defense budget (including the hidden parts) in half within a year, and close all unnecessary overseas military bases.
- No more subsidies to large corporations or Big Agro--NONE.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Ding Dong, Bin Laden is Dead!
It's now offical, Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, is dead. For real, this time. We finally got him in Pakistan.
It sure as hell took long enough--nearly ten years in fact. Our troops had him virtually cornered in Tora Bora in December 2001, the third month of the war, but for some reason (*cough* Bush *cough* Cheney *cough*) he managed to slither away despite supposedly being on dialysis at the time. What followed after that was near-decade-long quagmire, not least because our leaders really dropped the ball by going into Iraq rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan. The fact that he was killed in Pakistan yesterday confirms the theory that he fled there after Tora Bora. The same country McCain ridiculed Obama for wanting to hunt Al-Qaeda in, ironically.
All this pretty much guarantees that Obama will be re-elected in 2012 of course. Which is a good thing in our view, especially considering who he is likely running against.
So, can we FINALLY bring our troops home now? Preferably alive?
It sure as hell took long enough--nearly ten years in fact. Our troops had him virtually cornered in Tora Bora in December 2001, the third month of the war, but for some reason (*cough* Bush *cough* Cheney *cough*) he managed to slither away despite supposedly being on dialysis at the time. What followed after that was near-decade-long quagmire, not least because our leaders really dropped the ball by going into Iraq rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan. The fact that he was killed in Pakistan yesterday confirms the theory that he fled there after Tora Bora. The same country McCain ridiculed Obama for wanting to hunt Al-Qaeda in, ironically.
All this pretty much guarantees that Obama will be re-elected in 2012 of course. Which is a good thing in our view, especially considering who he is likely running against.
So, can we FINALLY bring our troops home now? Preferably alive?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Why Reverse Robin Hood Economics Must End
A new book, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer, shows what we have known for quite some time now. For the past three decades, our economy has grown dramatically, while nearly all of those gains have gone to the top 1%, especially the top 0.1% whose education and skills are not significantly better than those just below them. Meanwhile, most Americans saw little to no improvement, the middle class has shrank, and the bottom 40% has actually seen a decline in their real standard of living since 1980. So much for the trickle-down theory that the conservatives promised. More like the reverse of Robin Hood: rob from the poor, and give to the rich.
However, it was not always like this. From the end of WWII through the 1970s, America's massive prosperity was actually shared. In fact, those at the bottom actually gained somewhat more than those higher up the ladder, and poverty rates plummeted from 1950-1970 as wages rose with the economy, reaching an all-time low in 1973. We had essentially full employment and relatively low inflation until the early 1970s when stagflation and the oil crises unfolded. Back then, we actually made stuff that was worth something, and laying Americans off to exploit cheap Third World labor was considered unpatriotic at best. And believe it or not, it was actually possible for the vast majority of workers to support a family on only one income and a 40-hour workweek. Though far from being a true golden age (just ask any black person who was around then, for example), our real economy was probably the best it had ever been before or since.
Why was this quasi-golden age possible? Of course, the aftermath of WWII that devastated other countries but left us relatively unscathed partly explains our massive growth. But that in itself does not explain why prosperity was shared so equitably compared to previous or later eras. So let's look at Washington's influence, which is quite obvious. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top marginal tax rate was about 90%, and about 70% from the mid-1960s until 1981. Not only that, but inflation-adjusted thresholds for the top rate were also much higher then as well. The minimum wage, first instituted in 1938 under FDR, had been repeatedly increased faster than inflation until it peaked in 1968 at $10/hr (in 2010 dollars), after which it had begun lag inflation. And the effective minimum wage was even higher in most industries due to the strength of labor unions at the time, which Washington supported (or at least did not try to undermine). Under such conditions, companies rightly thought it silly to pay paper-pushing CEOs hundreds of times what the average workers make and give them massive bonuses on top of that. Instead, they invested their wealth in all of their workers, productivity enhancements, and thus invested in America as a whole. And of the high taxes they paid, a great deal was spent on public infrastructure that spurred economic growth. The 1960s also saw an expansion of social welfare programs as well, known as the Great Society. In other words, contrary to what conservatives like John McCain often claim, it seems that is entirely possible to both create and spread wealth at the same time.
But wait, haven't we all been told by the right-wingers (i.e. lapdogs of the ultra-rich) that all of these things somehow destroy the economy and cost millions of jobs? Apparently, these things work in practice, but not in theory. At least not what would eventually become the orthodox theory of economics.
Enter Ronald Reagan in 1981, who promised to fix the economy that was reeling from recession and inflation at the time. One of the first things he did was cut taxes, primarily for the top bracket. The top marginal rate was cut to 50%, and then to 28%. By the time he left office, the threshold for the top marginal rate had also shrank to below $100,000 in today's dollars. He also let the minimum wage lag behind inflation, cut various social programs, weakend business regulations, helped undermine unions, encouraged globalization (read: offshoring/outsourcing jobs) and increased "defense" (read: war) spending. CEOs got richer, while their employees saw no improvement or got poorer. Then Bush I raised taxes slightly, but continued in his predecessors footsteps. Clinton raised taxes more, especially at the top, but they were still lower than they were in Reagan's first term. While he presided over the longest continuous economic expansion in America's history, he too helped to promote further offshoring/outsourcing via NAFTA and gutted the social safety net further. Bush II continued the Reagan/Bush tradition of cutting taxes for the rich and weakening regulations, especially financial regulations. Over time, our manufacturing base, once the wonder of the world, has been gutted and replaced by a two-tier service economy with a massive financial sector at the top and low-wage jobs at the bottom. All throughout this time, the poor and middle class borrowed more and more money just to maintain the standard of living they had a few decades ago, let alone keep up with the rich Joneses, who gained unprecedented levels of wealth. By 2007, our nation's economic inequality had reached the levels we had in 1929, and like then, the bubble finally burst and the economy crashed in 2008. And we are still reeling from the crash nearly three years later, with unemployment more than double the 2007 rate and poverty at a 15-year high. And now the deficit and national debt are at an all-time high.
Another trend that occurred in parallel with this was inflation, which really took off when Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971. Now, the Feral Reserve can print as much money as they want and keep interest rates artificially low. This, along with lower taxes on the rich and weakened financial regulations, also helped to fuel massive bubbles, such as housing, commodities, credit, derivatives, and the stock market. In addition, massive inflation (what cost $1 in 1970 now costs $5.62 in 2010, and that's a conservative estimate) hits the poor the hardest all while helping to conceal stagnant or declining real wages. In fact, it got so bad that the Fed actually had to cause a recession (by jacking up interest rates to double-digits) in 1980-82 just to slow down inflation. Going back much farther, we see that what would have cost $1 in 1774 (just before the American Revolution) would have still cost about the same in 1912. Then the Feral Reserve was founded in 1913, the gold standard was abandoned in 1933 (but reinstated from 1946-1971), and what would have cost $1 in 1774 or 1912 would now cost a whopping $22--again a conservative estimate. Just like boiling a frog by gradually turning up the heat, this has been a clever way to rob from the poor and middle class and give to the rich, with most of the former being none the wiser.
It seems that the American Dream is now running in reverse. If we continue on our current path, each generation can expect to be poorer, not richer, than the previous one. Not to mention more heavily taxed to pay for the excesses of the past. But not the top 1% of course. Nevermind that they benefit the most from the mere existence of government to protect their massive wealth and to provide a stable infrastructure to enable them to earn it, as even Adam Smith (the veritable god of capitalism) so astutely observed.
There is nothing necessary, just, or sustainable about our nation's economic policies of the past few decades. Extreme concentration of wealth at the top hurts just about everyone in the long run. If we are to recover from the predicament our nation is in, we need to get back to doing what once made America great. Merely repealing the Bush tax cuts is not nearly enough. We must raise the top marginal rate to at least 50% for every dollar above $1 million, and perhaps even 70% for every dollar over $10 million, with no loopholes this time. The (apparently missing) million-dollar bracket that once existed must be restored. We must eliminate the tax cap on Social Security payroll taxes. We must remove corporate loopholes so that the largest corporations like GE and ExxonMobil (who somehow managed to pay zero taxes last year) would start actually paying taxes for once. We must raise the minimum wage to at least $10/hr, which is what it would have been if it had kept up with inflation since 1968, and index it to inflation from then on. We must repair our frayed social safety net. We must restore reasonable regulation on the financial sector. And we need to restore tariffs on imports made with cheap Third World labor, and use that revenue to put unemployed or underemployed Americans to work fixing our declining infrastructure and revitalizing our dilapidated manufacturing base. The government has redistributed wealth upward for decades now, and it's time to halt and reverse this ugly trend ASAP. While some may denounce these measures as "socialist" or even "communist", that would make Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon communists. And these Cold War presidents would all spin in their graves at such an accusation to say the least.
The time to end this massive injustice is now. But will our elected officials have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the ultra-rich?
However, it was not always like this. From the end of WWII through the 1970s, America's massive prosperity was actually shared. In fact, those at the bottom actually gained somewhat more than those higher up the ladder, and poverty rates plummeted from 1950-1970 as wages rose with the economy, reaching an all-time low in 1973. We had essentially full employment and relatively low inflation until the early 1970s when stagflation and the oil crises unfolded. Back then, we actually made stuff that was worth something, and laying Americans off to exploit cheap Third World labor was considered unpatriotic at best. And believe it or not, it was actually possible for the vast majority of workers to support a family on only one income and a 40-hour workweek. Though far from being a true golden age (just ask any black person who was around then, for example), our real economy was probably the best it had ever been before or since.
Why was this quasi-golden age possible? Of course, the aftermath of WWII that devastated other countries but left us relatively unscathed partly explains our massive growth. But that in itself does not explain why prosperity was shared so equitably compared to previous or later eras. So let's look at Washington's influence, which is quite obvious. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top marginal tax rate was about 90%, and about 70% from the mid-1960s until 1981. Not only that, but inflation-adjusted thresholds for the top rate were also much higher then as well. The minimum wage, first instituted in 1938 under FDR, had been repeatedly increased faster than inflation until it peaked in 1968 at $10/hr (in 2010 dollars), after which it had begun lag inflation. And the effective minimum wage was even higher in most industries due to the strength of labor unions at the time, which Washington supported (or at least did not try to undermine). Under such conditions, companies rightly thought it silly to pay paper-pushing CEOs hundreds of times what the average workers make and give them massive bonuses on top of that. Instead, they invested their wealth in all of their workers, productivity enhancements, and thus invested in America as a whole. And of the high taxes they paid, a great deal was spent on public infrastructure that spurred economic growth. The 1960s also saw an expansion of social welfare programs as well, known as the Great Society. In other words, contrary to what conservatives like John McCain often claim, it seems that is entirely possible to both create and spread wealth at the same time.
But wait, haven't we all been told by the right-wingers (i.e. lapdogs of the ultra-rich) that all of these things somehow destroy the economy and cost millions of jobs? Apparently, these things work in practice, but not in theory. At least not what would eventually become the orthodox theory of economics.
Enter Ronald Reagan in 1981, who promised to fix the economy that was reeling from recession and inflation at the time. One of the first things he did was cut taxes, primarily for the top bracket. The top marginal rate was cut to 50%, and then to 28%. By the time he left office, the threshold for the top marginal rate had also shrank to below $100,000 in today's dollars. He also let the minimum wage lag behind inflation, cut various social programs, weakend business regulations, helped undermine unions, encouraged globalization (read: offshoring/outsourcing jobs) and increased "defense" (read: war) spending. CEOs got richer, while their employees saw no improvement or got poorer. Then Bush I raised taxes slightly, but continued in his predecessors footsteps. Clinton raised taxes more, especially at the top, but they were still lower than they were in Reagan's first term. While he presided over the longest continuous economic expansion in America's history, he too helped to promote further offshoring/outsourcing via NAFTA and gutted the social safety net further. Bush II continued the Reagan/Bush tradition of cutting taxes for the rich and weakening regulations, especially financial regulations. Over time, our manufacturing base, once the wonder of the world, has been gutted and replaced by a two-tier service economy with a massive financial sector at the top and low-wage jobs at the bottom. All throughout this time, the poor and middle class borrowed more and more money just to maintain the standard of living they had a few decades ago, let alone keep up with the rich Joneses, who gained unprecedented levels of wealth. By 2007, our nation's economic inequality had reached the levels we had in 1929, and like then, the bubble finally burst and the economy crashed in 2008. And we are still reeling from the crash nearly three years later, with unemployment more than double the 2007 rate and poverty at a 15-year high. And now the deficit and national debt are at an all-time high.
Another trend that occurred in parallel with this was inflation, which really took off when Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971. Now, the Feral Reserve can print as much money as they want and keep interest rates artificially low. This, along with lower taxes on the rich and weakened financial regulations, also helped to fuel massive bubbles, such as housing, commodities, credit, derivatives, and the stock market. In addition, massive inflation (what cost $1 in 1970 now costs $5.62 in 2010, and that's a conservative estimate) hits the poor the hardest all while helping to conceal stagnant or declining real wages. In fact, it got so bad that the Fed actually had to cause a recession (by jacking up interest rates to double-digits) in 1980-82 just to slow down inflation. Going back much farther, we see that what would have cost $1 in 1774 (just before the American Revolution) would have still cost about the same in 1912. Then the Feral Reserve was founded in 1913, the gold standard was abandoned in 1933 (but reinstated from 1946-1971), and what would have cost $1 in 1774 or 1912 would now cost a whopping $22--again a conservative estimate. Just like boiling a frog by gradually turning up the heat, this has been a clever way to rob from the poor and middle class and give to the rich, with most of the former being none the wiser.
It seems that the American Dream is now running in reverse. If we continue on our current path, each generation can expect to be poorer, not richer, than the previous one. Not to mention more heavily taxed to pay for the excesses of the past. But not the top 1% of course. Nevermind that they benefit the most from the mere existence of government to protect their massive wealth and to provide a stable infrastructure to enable them to earn it, as even Adam Smith (the veritable god of capitalism) so astutely observed.
There is nothing necessary, just, or sustainable about our nation's economic policies of the past few decades. Extreme concentration of wealth at the top hurts just about everyone in the long run. If we are to recover from the predicament our nation is in, we need to get back to doing what once made America great. Merely repealing the Bush tax cuts is not nearly enough. We must raise the top marginal rate to at least 50% for every dollar above $1 million, and perhaps even 70% for every dollar over $10 million, with no loopholes this time. The (apparently missing) million-dollar bracket that once existed must be restored. We must eliminate the tax cap on Social Security payroll taxes. We must remove corporate loopholes so that the largest corporations like GE and ExxonMobil (who somehow managed to pay zero taxes last year) would start actually paying taxes for once. We must raise the minimum wage to at least $10/hr, which is what it would have been if it had kept up with inflation since 1968, and index it to inflation from then on. We must repair our frayed social safety net. We must restore reasonable regulation on the financial sector. And we need to restore tariffs on imports made with cheap Third World labor, and use that revenue to put unemployed or underemployed Americans to work fixing our declining infrastructure and revitalizing our dilapidated manufacturing base. The government has redistributed wealth upward for decades now, and it's time to halt and reverse this ugly trend ASAP. While some may denounce these measures as "socialist" or even "communist", that would make Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon communists. And these Cold War presidents would all spin in their graves at such an accusation to say the least.
The time to end this massive injustice is now. But will our elected officials have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the ultra-rich?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
How to Balance the Budget in Five Easy Steps
As we approach our debt ceiling, we need to realize the unsustainability of our current fiscal policies. Our national debt is a whopping $14.3 TRILLION dollars. Even the interest alone is hundreds of billions of dollars. We have been mired in two wars for the past eight years, one of which for nearly ten. And in we face over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the long run, for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As a rule, the Republicans refuse to raise taxes or cut "defense" (read: war) spending, the Democrats refuse to cut spending on anything else, both preferring to kick the can further and further down the road and dump the burden on future generations.
The truth is that we need to both raise taxes AND cut spending. Otherwise it will only get worse. While there are many ways to do this, the least painful (to the general public) of which involves the following:
1) Repeal the Bush tax cuts, at least for those who make over $200,000, create a new tax bracket at $1 million and up, and make the top marginal rate at least 50% (if not 70%) on all income above that amount, with no loopholes. No deductions other than state and local income taxes, and very limited charitable donations.
2) Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25%, with the first million tax-free, but remove ALL loopholes, and charge a higher rate on companies that outsource/offshore jobs overseas.
3) Remove the cap on Social Security taxes, limit benefits to wealthier retirees, index initial benefits to prices rather than wages, and invest at least some of the trust funds in the stock and (non-government) bond markets.
4) End the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, remove all troops by December, and cut our defense budget in half over the next year or two.
5) Enact a single-payer healthcare system that would finally bring costs under control. Fund it by the same revenue that is currently used for Medicare, Medicaid, and similar programs, plus a modest payroll tax and increased excise taxes (such as alcohol and cigarettes).
These things would quickly close the budget gap, with little pain for the general population, but the ultra-rich would hate all five of these steps. Other things that could be done include:
6) Pass a "financial transactions tax" of 0.25%, just high enough to discourage speculation and raise revenue but not enough to cause significant disruptions.
7) Create a value-added tax (VAT) like most other countries have, possibly offset by eliminating income tax on those who make less than $50,000 or $100,000 and giving a modest "prebate" to everyone regardless of income.
8) End the War on Drugs, at least for cannabis, and tax the hell out of all newly legalized substances. Consider doing the same for other victimless crimes as well.
9) Raise our tariffs on anything made with cheap Third World labor, and use at least some of that revenue to create jobs over here.
10) Cut wasteful subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agro, Big Tobacco, and Big Anything for that matter.
11) Raise the gas tax by a penny each week until it is a dollar higher than it is now, and use the revenue to fund much-needed public infrastructure improvements. Call it "a penny for progress".
Regardless of how it's done, we cannot afford to kick this can any further down the road. And the steps we recommend are the least damaging ways to do it.
The truth is that we need to both raise taxes AND cut spending. Otherwise it will only get worse. While there are many ways to do this, the least painful (to the general public) of which involves the following:
1) Repeal the Bush tax cuts, at least for those who make over $200,000, create a new tax bracket at $1 million and up, and make the top marginal rate at least 50% (if not 70%) on all income above that amount, with no loopholes. No deductions other than state and local income taxes, and very limited charitable donations.
2) Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25%, with the first million tax-free, but remove ALL loopholes, and charge a higher rate on companies that outsource/offshore jobs overseas.
3) Remove the cap on Social Security taxes, limit benefits to wealthier retirees, index initial benefits to prices rather than wages, and invest at least some of the trust funds in the stock and (non-government) bond markets.
4) End the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, remove all troops by December, and cut our defense budget in half over the next year or two.
5) Enact a single-payer healthcare system that would finally bring costs under control. Fund it by the same revenue that is currently used for Medicare, Medicaid, and similar programs, plus a modest payroll tax and increased excise taxes (such as alcohol and cigarettes).
These things would quickly close the budget gap, with little pain for the general population, but the ultra-rich would hate all five of these steps. Other things that could be done include:
6) Pass a "financial transactions tax" of 0.25%, just high enough to discourage speculation and raise revenue but not enough to cause significant disruptions.
7) Create a value-added tax (VAT) like most other countries have, possibly offset by eliminating income tax on those who make less than $50,000 or $100,000 and giving a modest "prebate" to everyone regardless of income.
8) End the War on Drugs, at least for cannabis, and tax the hell out of all newly legalized substances. Consider doing the same for other victimless crimes as well.
9) Raise our tariffs on anything made with cheap Third World labor, and use at least some of that revenue to create jobs over here.
10) Cut wasteful subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agro, Big Tobacco, and Big Anything for that matter.
11) Raise the gas tax by a penny each week until it is a dollar higher than it is now, and use the revenue to fund much-needed public infrastructure improvements. Call it "a penny for progress".
Regardless of how it's done, we cannot afford to kick this can any further down the road. And the steps we recommend are the least damaging ways to do it.
Friday, March 11, 2011
May You Live in Interesting Times
The title of this post is supposedly an English translation of an ancient Chinese curse, though obviously not everyone sees it that way. But for good or ill, the present time would certainly qualify.
Many oldsters view of the 1960s and early 1970s as the most interesting and exciting time in recent memory, and until very recently the media has constantly implied as much. But the early 21st century (especially the decade that just began) in many ways blows the past out of the water. Here is a quick summary of all the reasons why:
Many oldsters view of the 1960s and early 1970s as the most interesting and exciting time in recent memory, and until very recently the media has constantly implied as much. But the early 21st century (especially the decade that just began) in many ways blows the past out of the water. Here is a quick summary of all the reasons why:
- Increasing political upheavals around the world--Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Wisconsin.
- Increasing politically-motivated violence of all kinds, despite overall crime rates dropping.
- Increasing natural disasters, including the Japanese 8.9 earthquake and tsunamis that occurred just yesterday.
- Increasing man-made disasters, such as the BP oil spill and other ecological problems.
- A severe economic recession for the past few years, that we still have yet to recover from.
- Skyrocketing fuel and food prices.
- Federal and state budget woes from a record-high deficit and national debt.
- Long, drawn-out foreign wars in which America is still participating.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Reefer Madness Redux
In these crazy times, it seems that the anti-cannabis movement has finally come full-circle. I'm sure we have all heard about Reefer Madness, a movie from 1936 that tried to scare people about the supposed evils of cannabis. You know--murder, rape, suicide, promiscuity, and of course insanity. Worse than even heroin, it was alleged at the time. People were led to believe these outlandish claims, which contributed to cannabis becoming illegal by 1937 thanks to Harry Anslinger. Not like that stopped very many people from using it of course--it has gone from negligible levels of use back then to literally millions of users today.
As far back as the La Guardia Committee Report in 1944, such claims were largely debunked, and by 1951 Harry Anslinger changed his propaganda to claim the (now widely discredited) gateway theory, as well as the idea that it made users too peaceful to fight the Reds (quite the opposite of the original legend). In the 1960s it became associated with the anti-establishment counterculture, thus "amotivational syndrome" was the latest allegation leveled against it, along with ideas of general licentiousness, rebellion and lawlessness. Nixon even associated it with communism among other things, and was less than pleased when a study that he commissioned found results that were not to his liking. The 1970s brought several later discredited studies alleging serious brain damage (e.g. Dr. Heath's now infamous monkey study) and even genetic mutations, but claims of Reefer Madness had largely been abandoned by then. In the 1980s and 1990s, many of these themes kept on being recycled, plus the idea that had become much more potent (and dangerous) than it was in the 1960s and 1970s when the Baby Boomers were young.
But now it seems that claims of Reefer Madness, or at least the psychosis part of the legend, has made a comeback in recent years. Just when it seems that legalization is right around the corner, no less. Several recent studies claim to show a link between cannabis and psychosis, including schizophrenia. But is it true?
The best one can honestly say is that, overall, the jury is still out. Correlation is not the same as causation, and there are numerous other variables to consider. Take, for example, a study done last month that found that the cannabis-using individuals who did develop schizophrenia do so 2.7 years earlier than nonusers. This was a meta-analysis of many other studies, and of course the media took it and ran with it. But not all experts agree. Dr. Mitch Earleywine, an expert on cannabis, has his doubts about the study's ability to demonstrate a causal relationship. And one must remember that even if it did, it does not mean that it causes cases that would not otherwise have occurred--the study was not designed to look at that. In any event, the study design cannot completely rule out reverse causation (such as self-medication) either. Indeed, quite a few studies, including one by Earleywine himself, have suggested reverse causation or a common vulnerability as a possible explanation for the rather complex association between cannabis and psychosis.
So what about the most recent study that found that cannabis use is associated with a 1.9-fold increased odds of later psychotic symptoms? Unlike most other studies, this was a ten-year prospective longitudinal study (in Germany) that followed participants before they began using cannabis, and controlled for numerous confounders such as family history, urbanicity, childhood trauma, and use of other drugs. And there was no evidence of psychotic symptoms predicting later cannabis use, in contrast to some other prospective studies. However, several caveats apply here. First, it looked as psychotic symptoms (a fairly broad category that is quite prevalent in the general population) rather than actual psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Such symptoms as well as cannabis use were both self-reported, making reporting bias possible (i.e. those who are more frank about admitting to crazy thoughts may be more likely to admit to using an illicit substance). In fact, some such symptoms are remarkably similar to simply being stoned! Secondly, any epidemiological study with an odds ratio (or relative risk) of less than 2.0 needs to be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a whole pound. Thirdly, while other drugs were controlled for, residual confounding is possible since some poly-drug users to admit to using cannabis (a more socially acceptable drug) but not, say, crystal meth, thereby making cannabis the "fall guy" for other unreported drugs. Lacing without the user's knowledge is also a possibility due to the illegality of the plant. And like most studies on the matter, tobacco use was not directly controlled for in this study (or last month's one), which may be difficult to disentangle since the vast majority of European cannabis users also use tobacco (often mixed in their joints), making tobacco a possible "dark horse". Nicotine (a known neurotoxin) is, after all, the number one drug used by psychotic people for whatever reason. Finally, the study did not distinguish between light and heavy use of cannabis, or other substances for that matter, making it impossible to test for a dose-response relationship. But of course none of these caveats have stopped the MSM from claiming that this study is the final word on the matter.
Another obsevation we have noticed is that the vast majority of studies (including the one above) that appear to support a causal relationship have Dr. Robin Murray (UK) and/or Dr. Jim van Os (Netherlands) in the list of authors. This is especially true of studies where the relationship appears unidirectional. Not to accuse them of anything, of course, but the idea that the relationship is causal happens to be a pet theory they have both shared for nearly a decade. Hmmmm.
If cannabis really did cause cases of schizophrenia and other persistent psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred, then the massive increase in cannabis use (by orders of magnitude) from the early 1960s to the present should have been followed by at least a modest increase in the prevalence and incidence of such disorders in the long run. However, studies in both the UK and Australia have shown that this did not in fact occur, despite the British tabloids repeatedly claiming otherwise. In most Western countries, rates of psychosis have generally been stable or declining in spite of massive increases in cannabis use, and countries with very low use of cannabis (such as Sweden and Japan) do not have a significantly lower prevelance of psychotic disorders than countries with very high use (such as Canada and the USA). Nor is there any hard evidence that the Netherlands has become any crazier since their policy of quasi-legalization began in 1976. Thus, there is a major hole in the theory of causality that is rather difficult to explain away.
So what do we know for certain at this point? It is technically true that cannabis, especially when taken at very high doses, may cause a transient "toxic psychosis" and/or delirium in some people, albeit rarely. It is also true that at least some (but not all) people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (including the early stages) are particularly prone to bad reactions and can see exacerbations of their symptoms when using the drug, and those individuals should thus avoid it. But the same can be said about several other licit and illicit subtances, even caffeine (including, but not limited to, energy drinks). And contrary to what the alcohol supremacists would like to believe, there is also such a thing as alcohol-induced psychosis, which can sometimes be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. In addition, one should also bear in mind that there is more than one active ingredient in cannabis--while THC in isolation can produce transient anxiety and quasi-psychotic symptoms in some people, another component (cannabidiol) appears to actually have anti-psychotic and anti-anxiety effects, essentially blocking much of the adverse effects of THC. These two cannabinoids (and others) vary widely among the numerous strains of cannabis, with some strains having lots of one and negligible amounts of the others, and other strains being more balanced. But thanks to prohibition, it ends up pretty much being a guessing game.
Even if the putative link between cannabis and schizophrenia were somehow truly causal, which we doubt, it hardly follows that keeping cannabis illegal (and thus unregulated) is the best public policy response. In fact, a study using a mathematical model that assumes a causal relationship (of a magnitude similar to most of the studies that found an association) predicts that literally several thousand people would have to be prevented from using cannabis in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia! Even somehow making cannabis completely disappear tomorrow would, at best, lead to 10% fewer cases eventually. Not only is such a Herculean task practically impossible, it would be a utilitarian's worst nightmare. The social costs of prohibition is far higher than the social costs of cannabis, and the latter are also lower than the social costs of alcohol and tobacco, even on a per-user basis. It is thus far better to legalize, tax and regulate it than it is to prohibit it (and enrich violent criminals) for the ostensible purpose of protecting a small percentage of the population from themselves.
While we do not encourage anyone to use cannabis or any other psychoactive substance, the TSAP unequivocally supports legalization of cannabis, and taxation and regulation in a manner similar to how alcohol and tobacco are treated in most of the Western world. As we have said before, we are not a pro-drugs party, but rather pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. In a free society, our bodies (and minds) do not belong to the Almighty State, regardless of whether the state provides anything for the people. What we find most fascinating is how cannabis seems to cause anxiety, panic, paranoia, and psychosis in those who DON'T use it--especially among politicians.
We have had enough Reefer Madness for one century already. Its time for some "Reefer Sanity" for the 21st century.
As far back as the La Guardia Committee Report in 1944, such claims were largely debunked, and by 1951 Harry Anslinger changed his propaganda to claim the (now widely discredited) gateway theory, as well as the idea that it made users too peaceful to fight the Reds (quite the opposite of the original legend). In the 1960s it became associated with the anti-establishment counterculture, thus "amotivational syndrome" was the latest allegation leveled against it, along with ideas of general licentiousness, rebellion and lawlessness. Nixon even associated it with communism among other things, and was less than pleased when a study that he commissioned found results that were not to his liking. The 1970s brought several later discredited studies alleging serious brain damage (e.g. Dr. Heath's now infamous monkey study) and even genetic mutations, but claims of Reefer Madness had largely been abandoned by then. In the 1980s and 1990s, many of these themes kept on being recycled, plus the idea that had become much more potent (and dangerous) than it was in the 1960s and 1970s when the Baby Boomers were young.
But now it seems that claims of Reefer Madness, or at least the psychosis part of the legend, has made a comeback in recent years. Just when it seems that legalization is right around the corner, no less. Several recent studies claim to show a link between cannabis and psychosis, including schizophrenia. But is it true?
The best one can honestly say is that, overall, the jury is still out. Correlation is not the same as causation, and there are numerous other variables to consider. Take, for example, a study done last month that found that the cannabis-using individuals who did develop schizophrenia do so 2.7 years earlier than nonusers. This was a meta-analysis of many other studies, and of course the media took it and ran with it. But not all experts agree. Dr. Mitch Earleywine, an expert on cannabis, has his doubts about the study's ability to demonstrate a causal relationship. And one must remember that even if it did, it does not mean that it causes cases that would not otherwise have occurred--the study was not designed to look at that. In any event, the study design cannot completely rule out reverse causation (such as self-medication) either. Indeed, quite a few studies, including one by Earleywine himself, have suggested reverse causation or a common vulnerability as a possible explanation for the rather complex association between cannabis and psychosis.
So what about the most recent study that found that cannabis use is associated with a 1.9-fold increased odds of later psychotic symptoms? Unlike most other studies, this was a ten-year prospective longitudinal study (in Germany) that followed participants before they began using cannabis, and controlled for numerous confounders such as family history, urbanicity, childhood trauma, and use of other drugs. And there was no evidence of psychotic symptoms predicting later cannabis use, in contrast to some other prospective studies. However, several caveats apply here. First, it looked as psychotic symptoms (a fairly broad category that is quite prevalent in the general population) rather than actual psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Such symptoms as well as cannabis use were both self-reported, making reporting bias possible (i.e. those who are more frank about admitting to crazy thoughts may be more likely to admit to using an illicit substance). In fact, some such symptoms are remarkably similar to simply being stoned! Secondly, any epidemiological study with an odds ratio (or relative risk) of less than 2.0 needs to be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a whole pound. Thirdly, while other drugs were controlled for, residual confounding is possible since some poly-drug users to admit to using cannabis (a more socially acceptable drug) but not, say, crystal meth, thereby making cannabis the "fall guy" for other unreported drugs. Lacing without the user's knowledge is also a possibility due to the illegality of the plant. And like most studies on the matter, tobacco use was not directly controlled for in this study (or last month's one), which may be difficult to disentangle since the vast majority of European cannabis users also use tobacco (often mixed in their joints), making tobacco a possible "dark horse". Nicotine (a known neurotoxin) is, after all, the number one drug used by psychotic people for whatever reason. Finally, the study did not distinguish between light and heavy use of cannabis, or other substances for that matter, making it impossible to test for a dose-response relationship. But of course none of these caveats have stopped the MSM from claiming that this study is the final word on the matter.
Another obsevation we have noticed is that the vast majority of studies (including the one above) that appear to support a causal relationship have Dr. Robin Murray (UK) and/or Dr. Jim van Os (Netherlands) in the list of authors. This is especially true of studies where the relationship appears unidirectional. Not to accuse them of anything, of course, but the idea that the relationship is causal happens to be a pet theory they have both shared for nearly a decade. Hmmmm.
If cannabis really did cause cases of schizophrenia and other persistent psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred, then the massive increase in cannabis use (by orders of magnitude) from the early 1960s to the present should have been followed by at least a modest increase in the prevalence and incidence of such disorders in the long run. However, studies in both the UK and Australia have shown that this did not in fact occur, despite the British tabloids repeatedly claiming otherwise. In most Western countries, rates of psychosis have generally been stable or declining in spite of massive increases in cannabis use, and countries with very low use of cannabis (such as Sweden and Japan) do not have a significantly lower prevelance of psychotic disorders than countries with very high use (such as Canada and the USA). Nor is there any hard evidence that the Netherlands has become any crazier since their policy of quasi-legalization began in 1976. Thus, there is a major hole in the theory of causality that is rather difficult to explain away.
So what do we know for certain at this point? It is technically true that cannabis, especially when taken at very high doses, may cause a transient "toxic psychosis" and/or delirium in some people, albeit rarely. It is also true that at least some (but not all) people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (including the early stages) are particularly prone to bad reactions and can see exacerbations of their symptoms when using the drug, and those individuals should thus avoid it. But the same can be said about several other licit and illicit subtances, even caffeine (including, but not limited to, energy drinks). And contrary to what the alcohol supremacists would like to believe, there is also such a thing as alcohol-induced psychosis, which can sometimes be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. In addition, one should also bear in mind that there is more than one active ingredient in cannabis--while THC in isolation can produce transient anxiety and quasi-psychotic symptoms in some people, another component (cannabidiol) appears to actually have anti-psychotic and anti-anxiety effects, essentially blocking much of the adverse effects of THC. These two cannabinoids (and others) vary widely among the numerous strains of cannabis, with some strains having lots of one and negligible amounts of the others, and other strains being more balanced. But thanks to prohibition, it ends up pretty much being a guessing game.
Even if the putative link between cannabis and schizophrenia were somehow truly causal, which we doubt, it hardly follows that keeping cannabis illegal (and thus unregulated) is the best public policy response. In fact, a study using a mathematical model that assumes a causal relationship (of a magnitude similar to most of the studies that found an association) predicts that literally several thousand people would have to be prevented from using cannabis in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia! Even somehow making cannabis completely disappear tomorrow would, at best, lead to 10% fewer cases eventually. Not only is such a Herculean task practically impossible, it would be a utilitarian's worst nightmare. The social costs of prohibition is far higher than the social costs of cannabis, and the latter are also lower than the social costs of alcohol and tobacco, even on a per-user basis. It is thus far better to legalize, tax and regulate it than it is to prohibit it (and enrich violent criminals) for the ostensible purpose of protecting a small percentage of the population from themselves.
While we do not encourage anyone to use cannabis or any other psychoactive substance, the TSAP unequivocally supports legalization of cannabis, and taxation and regulation in a manner similar to how alcohol and tobacco are treated in most of the Western world. As we have said before, we are not a pro-drugs party, but rather pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. In a free society, our bodies (and minds) do not belong to the Almighty State, regardless of whether the state provides anything for the people. What we find most fascinating is how cannabis seems to cause anxiety, panic, paranoia, and psychosis in those who DON'T use it--especially among politicians.
We have had enough Reefer Madness for one century already. Its time for some "Reefer Sanity" for the 21st century.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
State of the Planet Address
On January 25, 2011, the President gave his annual State of the Union Address. The TSAP believes we should start a new tradition--the State of the Planet Address. Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least. So take off your rose-colored glasses and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. And in 2010, we had the worst oil spill in the entire history of the world, leaving widespread and severe environmental damage in its wake that will persist for years to come.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towars the planet has to end.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. Every dollar raised will be used this way without exception. Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this embedded tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress".
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from the plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate to 1.5-1.9 to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but we do not support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). But the current tax and benefit incentives that reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Our planet is in grave danger. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. And in 2010, we had the worst oil spill in the entire history of the world, leaving widespread and severe environmental damage in its wake that will persist for years to come.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towars the planet has to end.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. Every dollar raised will be used this way without exception. Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this embedded tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress".
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from the plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate to 1.5-1.9 to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but we do not support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). But the current tax and benefit incentives that reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Third-Hand Smoke Redux
A year ago, in a previous post, we discussed the relatively new and unfounded scares about third-hand smoke. This concept is typically defined as the residue from tobacco smoke that sticks to various surfaces, including the smokers themselves. We have warned that this bogus scare may lead to frivolous lawsuits and further loss of civil liberties in the future, and expressed great concern about such prospects. Thus, we had hoped the issue would go away, but apparently it did not.
One recent study found that tobacco smoke residue on cellulose substrates (to mimic fabric surfaces) has the potential to "desorb" from such substrates upon exposure to ozone (O3), and become airborne in the future. However, even the researchers admit that this would requires much lower levels of humidity and much higher levels of ozone that would be found in a typical home. Perhaps on an airplane this may be true, due to dry cabin air and stratospheric ozone, but smoking is already banned on American airplanes. This was similar to another study from last year that found that the pollutant nitrous acid (HONO) can react with nicotine to form small amounts of carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). OOOOOO....be very, very afraid! However, what the media didn't report was that the amount of HONO used was an order of magnitude higher than would be encountered in a typical home--if your levels are that high, that in itself is a health hazard, and it often indicates the presence of toxic NO and NO2 as well. Bottom line: neither study demonstrated that so-called third-hand smoke poses a practically significant health hazard under non-extreme circumstances, if even at all. And it is junk science to claim otherwise.
But what about the new study that found that toxins supposedly linger in a building long after a smoker moves out? Again, no proof of any actual health hazard, just the observation that surfaces tested positive for nicotine, and the urine of new nonsmoking residents tested positive for cotinine (a nicotine metabolite), the latter of which may very well be confounded. So what? It's the dose that makes the poison, and there's a safe level for everything, even arsenic and (gasp!) radiation. And the actual amounts of nicotine and cotinine were quite small indeed, and not at levels proven to be hazardous. In fact, even the authors readily admit that "this study was not designed to investigate health outcomes of exposure"--despite the media's insinuations otherwise.
Another study apparently found that even when smoking occurs in an unventilated room and surfaces are vigorously agitated the following day, the concentration of "third-hand smoke" particles that do become airborne is 100 times lower than second-hand smoke, which itself is more dilute than first-hand smoke. Thus, even anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel considers the alleged risk from such exposure to be theoretical rather than practical, and that there ought to be no concern at all about the residues carried on the clothing of smokers after smoking outdoors. Finally, some sanity for once!
And furthermore, I suggest all the true believers take a look at the following links:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mcs.html
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1211/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1278/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.910/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
As for further erosion of civil rights and liberties, It appears our fears may very well come true if our society lets them. For example, the town of Great Neck, NY just recently banned outdoor smoking on the sidewalks, punishable by a whopping $1000 fine. Worse still, the state of Maine is actually considering a bill that will deny medical treatment (through Medicaid) to smokers, despite the fact that smokers actually save society money (on balance) by dying earlier than nonsmokers. Talk about playing God--should also we deny medical treatment to obese people, or anyone else some people deem deficient in character?
The TSAP is definitely NOT pro-smoking or pro-tobacco, and we hate the merchants of death known as tobacco companies, who willfully lied for decades about the dangers of their products and who continue to add harmful adulterants to this day. We believe that smoking or otherwise using any form of tobacco (all-natural or otherwise) is quite foolish given what we know today. But we fully support the right of all legal adults to choose pleasure over longevity, as long as they do not endanger nonconsenting others more than the minimum. Our society's love affair with the chimera of a no-risk society is a farce, plain and simple. Life is a risk, and there will be many things in this world you don't like. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. Remember that this is America, the land of the free, not Soviet Russia or North Korea. Those that can't handle living in a free society should take advantage of the best freedom we can offer you--the freedom to leave.
Thus, we recommend that governments do the following:
Final thought: whenever anyone says "there is absolutely no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke (or its residue)", just replace the word "tobacco" with "campfire" or "barbecue". Now do you see how absurd it sounds?
One recent study found that tobacco smoke residue on cellulose substrates (to mimic fabric surfaces) has the potential to "desorb" from such substrates upon exposure to ozone (O3), and become airborne in the future. However, even the researchers admit that this would requires much lower levels of humidity and much higher levels of ozone that would be found in a typical home. Perhaps on an airplane this may be true, due to dry cabin air and stratospheric ozone, but smoking is already banned on American airplanes. This was similar to another study from last year that found that the pollutant nitrous acid (HONO) can react with nicotine to form small amounts of carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). OOOOOO....be very, very afraid! However, what the media didn't report was that the amount of HONO used was an order of magnitude higher than would be encountered in a typical home--if your levels are that high, that in itself is a health hazard, and it often indicates the presence of toxic NO and NO2 as well. Bottom line: neither study demonstrated that so-called third-hand smoke poses a practically significant health hazard under non-extreme circumstances, if even at all. And it is junk science to claim otherwise.
But what about the new study that found that toxins supposedly linger in a building long after a smoker moves out? Again, no proof of any actual health hazard, just the observation that surfaces tested positive for nicotine, and the urine of new nonsmoking residents tested positive for cotinine (a nicotine metabolite), the latter of which may very well be confounded. So what? It's the dose that makes the poison, and there's a safe level for everything, even arsenic and (gasp!) radiation. And the actual amounts of nicotine and cotinine were quite small indeed, and not at levels proven to be hazardous. In fact, even the authors readily admit that "this study was not designed to investigate health outcomes of exposure"--despite the media's insinuations otherwise.
Another study apparently found that even when smoking occurs in an unventilated room and surfaces are vigorously agitated the following day, the concentration of "third-hand smoke" particles that do become airborne is 100 times lower than second-hand smoke, which itself is more dilute than first-hand smoke. Thus, even anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel considers the alleged risk from such exposure to be theoretical rather than practical, and that there ought to be no concern at all about the residues carried on the clothing of smokers after smoking outdoors. Finally, some sanity for once!
And furthermore, I suggest all the true believers take a look at the following links:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mcs.html
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1211/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1278/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.910/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
As for further erosion of civil rights and liberties, It appears our fears may very well come true if our society lets them. For example, the town of Great Neck, NY just recently banned outdoor smoking on the sidewalks, punishable by a whopping $1000 fine. Worse still, the state of Maine is actually considering a bill that will deny medical treatment (through Medicaid) to smokers, despite the fact that smokers actually save society money (on balance) by dying earlier than nonsmokers. Talk about playing God--should also we deny medical treatment to obese people, or anyone else some people deem deficient in character?
The TSAP is definitely NOT pro-smoking or pro-tobacco, and we hate the merchants of death known as tobacco companies, who willfully lied for decades about the dangers of their products and who continue to add harmful adulterants to this day. We believe that smoking or otherwise using any form of tobacco (all-natural or otherwise) is quite foolish given what we know today. But we fully support the right of all legal adults to choose pleasure over longevity, as long as they do not endanger nonconsenting others more than the minimum. Our society's love affair with the chimera of a no-risk society is a farce, plain and simple. Life is a risk, and there will be many things in this world you don't like. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. Remember that this is America, the land of the free, not Soviet Russia or North Korea. Those that can't handle living in a free society should take advantage of the best freedom we can offer you--the freedom to leave.
Thus, we recommend that governments do the following:
Federal
- Ban the use of radioactive fertilizers completely, period
- Ban the use of any harmful additives or pesticides for tobacco products, and require all new additives (if any) to be FDA-approved
- Require full disclosure of ingredients in tobacco products on the package
- Require all cigarettes to be fire-safe, like many states already do
- Set a national price floor of $5 per pack ($50 per carton) to discourage interstate smuggling, and index the federal tobacco tax to inflation
- End all tobacco farming subsidies
- Ban workplace discrimination for smoking on one's own time, or any other lifestyle choice that does not adversely affect one's job or directly harm nonconsenting others
- Repeal all outdoor smoking bans, and pre-empt any future ones
- Repeal smoking bans in bars, and let the owners decide for themselves
- Repeal any smoking bans in residences, or at least set aside some apartments (and dorms) that do allow smoking
- Set (and enforce) reasonable air quality standards for bars and restaurants that must be met, smoking or not
- Give tax credits for the purchase of high-tech ventilation and air-cleaning equipment to bars and restaurants
- Repeal smoking bans in private clubs
- Maintain existing indoor smoking bans in areas other than bars and residences
- Throw any lawsuit related to "third-hand smoke" out of court, and allow such plaintiffs to be countersued for filing a frivolous lawsuit
- Do not interfere with parental rights relating to smoking (within reason)
- Do not ban e-cigarettes, snus, or other smokeless tobacco products, and do not restrict them more severely than cigarettes
- Divest from Big Tobacco completely
- Increase honest anti-tobacco education programs
- Quit harassing smokers--their taxes pay your salary
Final thought: whenever anyone says "there is absolutely no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke (or its residue)", just replace the word "tobacco" with "campfire" or "barbecue". Now do you see how absurd it sounds?
Monday, January 24, 2011
What to Do about the Debt?
The national debt (currently $14 trillion and growing) is about to reach its ceiling of $14.3 trillion, probably by March 31 of this year. Some, like the President, say we must raise the debt ceiling or risk defaulting, the latter of which would be catastrophic. Others, like many Republicans, say that we should not raise the ceiling, thus forcing the government to cut spending. Still others believe America is doomed either way. So what's the truth?
Well, first of all, not raising the ceiling is not the same thing as defaulting, and such a choice is a false dichotomy. Not raising the ceiling simply means we can't increase our rate of borrowing. If we hit the ceiling on March 31, the government will still have several more months before we actually run the risk of default. The Feral Reserve has many weapons in its arsenal to stave off a crisis temporarily. That will buy some time for further debate in Congress on what to ultimately do. However, we must never default--it is simply not an option. On the other hand, our current practice of continually increasing the debt is unsustainable.
It is interesting how the Republicans have suddenly become so hawkish about the debt, considering how they have been running up massive deficits since Reagan, and thus how most of the debt (including interest, which we simply borrow even more to pay) can be traced to Reagan and both Bushes. You know, the same borrow-and-spend "conservatives" who cut taxes on the rich while increasing "defense" (read: war) spending as well as general government waste. And today's Republicans are the same ones who held unemployment benefits hostage to force the Democrats to extend the tax cuts on the rich, further worsening our debt problem. The current brinksmanship on the debt ceiling is most likely just yet another way to extract more concessions out of the Democrats. The Republicans most likely will accept a ceiling increase in exchange for what they want.
We at the TSAP believe that the best course of action is to not raise the ceiling, and force Congress to raise taxes and cut spending. But it has to be done right. The best way to raise taxes is to end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of the population, create a new 50% bracket at $1 million, equalize the dividend tax with the tax on regular income, and close as many tax loopholes as possible ASAP. (No, that will not destroy jobs--we have already debunked that claim.) When the economy improves, taxes on the lower 98% should also be restored to their 2000 levels, and/or be replaced with a VAT. Tariffs on foreign goods need to be raised as well, which will also protect American jobs. Other taxes that should be raised are the gas tax, the alcohol taxes, and the tobacco taxes--and perhaps new excise taxes should be created on other vices. As for spending, the best way to cut that is to cut defense spending by half over the next 5-10 years, close unnecessary foreign bases, accelerate withdrawal from Iraq, and completely pull out of Afghanistan no later than 2012. Waste should be eliminated, the line-item veto should be restored, and the Read the Bills Act must be passed. No more bailouts, ever. In the longer term, Social Security and Medicare do indeed need to be reformed, but not jettisoned or privatized like in the Republican fantasy world. And raiding the Social Security Trust Fund should be banned entirely.
So if the Republicans want to not raise the ceiling, fine. But the Democrats should not concede, but rather call their bluff and demand that the Republicans agree to higher taxes on the wealthy and cuts to "defense" spending and Republican waste, or else the ceiling will be raised to $15 trillion (but no higher). Turnabout is fair play--after all, the Republicans were the ones who demanded the tax cut extensions by holding unemployment benefits hostage.
Failing all that, if the ceiling is eventually raised, any such raise should be conditional on passage of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You know, the very same amendment that Bush II claimed to support when he first ran for President in 2000. In other words, from 2012 onward, no more deficits, only surpluses. Then maybe we can actually start paying down our ludicrously high national debt.
Well, first of all, not raising the ceiling is not the same thing as defaulting, and such a choice is a false dichotomy. Not raising the ceiling simply means we can't increase our rate of borrowing. If we hit the ceiling on March 31, the government will still have several more months before we actually run the risk of default. The Feral Reserve has many weapons in its arsenal to stave off a crisis temporarily. That will buy some time for further debate in Congress on what to ultimately do. However, we must never default--it is simply not an option. On the other hand, our current practice of continually increasing the debt is unsustainable.
It is interesting how the Republicans have suddenly become so hawkish about the debt, considering how they have been running up massive deficits since Reagan, and thus how most of the debt (including interest, which we simply borrow even more to pay) can be traced to Reagan and both Bushes. You know, the same borrow-and-spend "conservatives" who cut taxes on the rich while increasing "defense" (read: war) spending as well as general government waste. And today's Republicans are the same ones who held unemployment benefits hostage to force the Democrats to extend the tax cuts on the rich, further worsening our debt problem. The current brinksmanship on the debt ceiling is most likely just yet another way to extract more concessions out of the Democrats. The Republicans most likely will accept a ceiling increase in exchange for what they want.
We at the TSAP believe that the best course of action is to not raise the ceiling, and force Congress to raise taxes and cut spending. But it has to be done right. The best way to raise taxes is to end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of the population, create a new 50% bracket at $1 million, equalize the dividend tax with the tax on regular income, and close as many tax loopholes as possible ASAP. (No, that will not destroy jobs--we have already debunked that claim.) When the economy improves, taxes on the lower 98% should also be restored to their 2000 levels, and/or be replaced with a VAT. Tariffs on foreign goods need to be raised as well, which will also protect American jobs. Other taxes that should be raised are the gas tax, the alcohol taxes, and the tobacco taxes--and perhaps new excise taxes should be created on other vices. As for spending, the best way to cut that is to cut defense spending by half over the next 5-10 years, close unnecessary foreign bases, accelerate withdrawal from Iraq, and completely pull out of Afghanistan no later than 2012. Waste should be eliminated, the line-item veto should be restored, and the Read the Bills Act must be passed. No more bailouts, ever. In the longer term, Social Security and Medicare do indeed need to be reformed, but not jettisoned or privatized like in the Republican fantasy world. And raiding the Social Security Trust Fund should be banned entirely.
So if the Republicans want to not raise the ceiling, fine. But the Democrats should not concede, but rather call their bluff and demand that the Republicans agree to higher taxes on the wealthy and cuts to "defense" spending and Republican waste, or else the ceiling will be raised to $15 trillion (but no higher). Turnabout is fair play--after all, the Republicans were the ones who demanded the tax cut extensions by holding unemployment benefits hostage.
Failing all that, if the ceiling is eventually raised, any such raise should be conditional on passage of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You know, the very same amendment that Bush II claimed to support when he first ran for President in 2000. In other words, from 2012 onward, no more deficits, only surpluses. Then maybe we can actually start paying down our ludicrously high national debt.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Reflections on the Tuscon Shooting
On January 8, 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tuscon, AZ, along with several other people. While she survived after being shot in the head, and appears to be recovering fairly well, six other people unfortunately died, including a child. Out of respect, the TSAP has (until now) avoided making any posts about the Tuscon massacre or any issues related to it since we first learned about it.
We extend our deepest condolences to all the victims of this horrible and senseless act of violence, along with their families. As we have stated before, the TSAP uneqivocally condemns all forms of violence, political or otherwise, except for immediate self-defense. It destroys the fabric of society and often leads to more violence. Regardless of one's political persuasion, that fact should be clear to all.
What can we learn from this tragedy? Well, we know that the alleged shooter (whose name we refuse to mention) was apparently mentally ill. This fact can be gleaned from his history of uncontrolled outbursts in class and bizarre YouTube videos. We know that he was gung-ho about killing Giffords for quite some time, and that the shooting was premeditated rather than a crime of passion. We know he was neither left-wing nor right-wing, but was an ardent anti-goverment conspiracy theorist, and possibly a bigot as well. We know that he was an ex-drug user who apparently got worse mentally after quitting, and committed the massacre after being clean and sober for over two years. We know that he got the gun legally and passed the background check, but probably could have gotten one fairly easily even if had he been denied, due to the widespread availability of illegal guns (especially in major cities like Tuscon). We know that multiple-victim public shootings are relatively rare events, and interestingly are even rarer and typically less severe in jurisdictions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons (such as Arizona). And that many such shootings, such as Virginia Tech (and all other school shootings in America since 1995) occur in so-called "gun-free zones". We know that nearly half of these shooters have been formally diagnosed with a severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia), and we also know that our country's mental health care system is seriously broken and underfunded thanks to ignorance and decades of budget cuts.
Unfortunately, politics can get nasty rather quickly after something like this happens, and the rancor can easily cloud one's judgment. We at the TSAP strongly discourage any sort of overreaction to this tragedy, including the passage of knee-jerk legislation that will most likely do more harm than good. And we also support President Obama's call for increased civility in the wake of this tragedy.
We extend our deepest condolences to all the victims of this horrible and senseless act of violence, along with their families. As we have stated before, the TSAP uneqivocally condemns all forms of violence, political or otherwise, except for immediate self-defense. It destroys the fabric of society and often leads to more violence. Regardless of one's political persuasion, that fact should be clear to all.
What can we learn from this tragedy? Well, we know that the alleged shooter (whose name we refuse to mention) was apparently mentally ill. This fact can be gleaned from his history of uncontrolled outbursts in class and bizarre YouTube videos. We know that he was gung-ho about killing Giffords for quite some time, and that the shooting was premeditated rather than a crime of passion. We know he was neither left-wing nor right-wing, but was an ardent anti-goverment conspiracy theorist, and possibly a bigot as well. We know that he was an ex-drug user who apparently got worse mentally after quitting, and committed the massacre after being clean and sober for over two years. We know that he got the gun legally and passed the background check, but probably could have gotten one fairly easily even if had he been denied, due to the widespread availability of illegal guns (especially in major cities like Tuscon). We know that multiple-victim public shootings are relatively rare events, and interestingly are even rarer and typically less severe in jurisdictions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons (such as Arizona). And that many such shootings, such as Virginia Tech (and all other school shootings in America since 1995) occur in so-called "gun-free zones". We know that nearly half of these shooters have been formally diagnosed with a severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia), and we also know that our country's mental health care system is seriously broken and underfunded thanks to ignorance and decades of budget cuts.
Unfortunately, politics can get nasty rather quickly after something like this happens, and the rancor can easily cloud one's judgment. We at the TSAP strongly discourage any sort of overreaction to this tragedy, including the passage of knee-jerk legislation that will most likely do more harm than good. And we also support President Obama's call for increased civility in the wake of this tragedy.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Fluoridation Controversy Revisited
On January 7, 2011, for the first time in nearly half a century, the federal government has reviewed recommended fluoride levels in drinking water, and announced that they may recommend reducing (but not eliminating) such levels. Apparently, kids are getting too much fluoride, as evidenced by the significant increase in dental fluorosis (tooth mottling) in teens since the 1980s. Which should come as no surprise, since fluoride is found not just in drinking water, but also in toothpaste, some vitamin supplements, tea, processed foods and soft drinks made with fluoride-containing water, some bottled waters, and even the air we breathe.
Water fluoridation began in earnest in the early 1950s, after first being tried in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Today, the majority of communities in the United States currently fluoridate their water. However, most European countries currently do not, and most of those that once did have banned the practice decades ago due to safety concerns. While it is true that tooth decay rates have declined in the US since fluoridation was adopted, similar or even faster declines have been observed in countries that do not fluoridate. Also, declines often began before fluoridation, and continued after stopping it. Thus, the secular decline in tooth decay was most likely due to an increase in the use of fluoride toothpaste as well as improvements in general nutrition, as opposed to water fluoridation. Which makes perfect sense, since it is now known that the benefits of fluoride are topical rather than systemic.
As for the potential risks associated with fluoridation, the statements by proponents of the practice have not been particularly reassuring. Fluoride has been linked to several adverse health effects, some scarier than others. While the jury is still out on many of these effects, evidence has been mounting for quite some time, and even the relatively weak version of the precautionary principle embodied in the Rio Declaration would seem to preclude continuation of deliberate water fluoridation in any amount.
There are also ethical issues to consider. Mass-medicating the whole population with uncontrolled doses of a potentially hazardous substance without informed consent is generally viewed as violating basic biomedical ethical principles, to say nothing of civil liberties issues.
Since our founding in 2009, the TSAP has generally been neutral on the issue of water fluoridation. However, in light of both past and recent evidence, we now recommend that a complete moratorium on the practice be put in place as a precautionary measure while the issue is studied further.
Water fluoridation began in earnest in the early 1950s, after first being tried in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Today, the majority of communities in the United States currently fluoridate their water. However, most European countries currently do not, and most of those that once did have banned the practice decades ago due to safety concerns. While it is true that tooth decay rates have declined in the US since fluoridation was adopted, similar or even faster declines have been observed in countries that do not fluoridate. Also, declines often began before fluoridation, and continued after stopping it. Thus, the secular decline in tooth decay was most likely due to an increase in the use of fluoride toothpaste as well as improvements in general nutrition, as opposed to water fluoridation. Which makes perfect sense, since it is now known that the benefits of fluoride are topical rather than systemic.
As for the potential risks associated with fluoridation, the statements by proponents of the practice have not been particularly reassuring. Fluoride has been linked to several adverse health effects, some scarier than others. While the jury is still out on many of these effects, evidence has been mounting for quite some time, and even the relatively weak version of the precautionary principle embodied in the Rio Declaration would seem to preclude continuation of deliberate water fluoridation in any amount.
There are also ethical issues to consider. Mass-medicating the whole population with uncontrolled doses of a potentially hazardous substance without informed consent is generally viewed as violating basic biomedical ethical principles, to say nothing of civil liberties issues.
Since our founding in 2009, the TSAP has generally been neutral on the issue of water fluoridation. However, in light of both past and recent evidence, we now recommend that a complete moratorium on the practice be put in place as a precautionary measure while the issue is studied further.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Elites Get Their Way Yet Again, Deficit (and Debt) Will Soar
It's official. The tax cut extension deal has passed.
What does this mean? It means all of the Bush tax cuts will remain another two years for all brackets, including the ultra-rich. In exchange, the unemployment benefits extension will be extended an additional year, and the payroll tax for Social Security will also be temporarily reduced. The price tag for all of this? $858 billion dollars. And with no spending cuts to offset it. Just what we need, more deficits.
How did such an asinine "compromise" even pass in the first place? The Democrats, including President Obama, wanted to let all the tax cuts remain for everyone except for those in the top two brackets (the top 2%). Which makes sense given the bad economy and the already soaring deficits. But the Republicans in Congress threatened to hold hostage any extension in unemployment benefits (obviously the worst time to do so) if the tax cuts on the top 2% were allowed to expire. That alone shows who the Republicans really care about above all else, regardless of who they pay lip service to.
Thus the elites got their way yet again, and future generations will have to pay for their mistakes.
What does this mean? It means all of the Bush tax cuts will remain another two years for all brackets, including the ultra-rich. In exchange, the unemployment benefits extension will be extended an additional year, and the payroll tax for Social Security will also be temporarily reduced. The price tag for all of this? $858 billion dollars. And with no spending cuts to offset it. Just what we need, more deficits.
How did such an asinine "compromise" even pass in the first place? The Democrats, including President Obama, wanted to let all the tax cuts remain for everyone except for those in the top two brackets (the top 2%). Which makes sense given the bad economy and the already soaring deficits. But the Republicans in Congress threatened to hold hostage any extension in unemployment benefits (obviously the worst time to do so) if the tax cuts on the top 2% were allowed to expire. That alone shows who the Republicans really care about above all else, regardless of who they pay lip service to.
Thus the elites got their way yet again, and future generations will have to pay for their mistakes.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Banks Gone Wild, Again
The Feral Reserve is at it again. They have decided to create $600 billion to $1 trillion completely out of thin air. Gold and oil are on the rise again.
Of course, all that money is going to the banks, and will be concentrated among the super-rich at the top. While the TSAP does not advocate creating money ex nihilo, if it must happen, it should be distributed to the people. $600 billion would provide nearly $2000 to every man, woman, and child in the USA, or alternatively nearly $100 to every man, woman, and child in the entire world. Would that boost consumer spending, and thus the economy? You bet it will--but then comes the inflation surprise a few months later, of course.
However, no amount of prinitng funny money got Japan out of their "lost decade" following the Nikkei crash of 1990, a crash spurred on by the same factors as our 2008 stock market crash (housing and credit bubbles). Japan's prolonged deflationary recession lasted until 2003, a full 13 years. And they still never fully recovered, unfortunately, despite a significant rebound from 2003-2007 before the current financial crisis and recession. But I guess a deflationary recession is better than an inflationary depression.
We're "turning Japanese," all right. Just not in a good way.
Of course, all that money is going to the banks, and will be concentrated among the super-rich at the top. While the TSAP does not advocate creating money ex nihilo, if it must happen, it should be distributed to the people. $600 billion would provide nearly $2000 to every man, woman, and child in the USA, or alternatively nearly $100 to every man, woman, and child in the entire world. Would that boost consumer spending, and thus the economy? You bet it will--but then comes the inflation surprise a few months later, of course.
However, no amount of prinitng funny money got Japan out of their "lost decade" following the Nikkei crash of 1990, a crash spurred on by the same factors as our 2008 stock market crash (housing and credit bubbles). Japan's prolonged deflationary recession lasted until 2003, a full 13 years. And they still never fully recovered, unfortunately, despite a significant rebound from 2003-2007 before the current financial crisis and recession. But I guess a deflationary recession is better than an inflationary depression.
We're "turning Japanese," all right. Just not in a good way.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
California Proposition 19: FAIL
Unfortunately, it seems that "California Dreaming" did NOT become a reality in 2010 like we had hoped. Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would have legalized, taxed, and regulated cannabis in California lost 46% to 54%. Close, but no cigar (or doobie).
However, this is still closer than any comparable initiative has ever come in history, and the debate it ignited will certainly NOT die anytime soon. The pro-legalization side is now gearing up for 2012, when similar initiatives have a better chance of passing.
The 2010 election was a major disappointment in general. In nearly all states, the Repugnicans won (while the TSAP does not like either major party, we generally feel that, as a rule, the Democrats are the lesser of two evils). California was one of the few exceptions to this trend. But at least some of the leftovers were thrown out, and many of the losing Democrat incumbents were spineless jellyfish anyway.
So why did Prop 19 fail? It was doing great in the polls up until early October, and it seemed like a sure thing, with 52% in favor. But then the Governator took some of the wind out of its sails by signing into law Senate Bill 1449, effective January 1, which decriminalized (not legalized) possession of less than an ounce of ganja to a mere violation, making it a $100 fine with no court appearance or criminal record. It was formerly a misdemeanor, though the fine was the same. Next, the federal Drug Czar and the Attorney General were threatening to vigorously enforce the federal laws against cannabis if it passes, potentially upending the "truce" over medical cannabis since early 2009. Finally, the "No" side geared up and used ridiculous scare tactics in their ads, which unfortunately worked due to voter ignorance as well as vague language in certain parts of the initiative's text. And the two big sugar daddies for the "Yes" campaign (billionaires George Soros and Peter B. Lewis) did not donate anything until a week or two before election day, essentially too late.
One can only hope that things will go differently in 2012, when the demographics will be more favorable. But just don't number it Prop 19 again--it appears to be bad luck, just like it was in 1972. And any unnecessary or vague language in the initiative that appears to be the least bit overreaching should be nixed at once, as it appears to be "one toke over the line," so to speak.
The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.
UPDATE: After much vote tallying for the past ten days, it turned out that Arizona's Proposition 203 narrowly passed as of November 14. This makes Arizona the latest state to legalize medical cannabis.
However, this is still closer than any comparable initiative has ever come in history, and the debate it ignited will certainly NOT die anytime soon. The pro-legalization side is now gearing up for 2012, when similar initiatives have a better chance of passing.
The 2010 election was a major disappointment in general. In nearly all states, the Repugnicans won (while the TSAP does not like either major party, we generally feel that, as a rule, the Democrats are the lesser of two evils). California was one of the few exceptions to this trend. But at least some of the leftovers were thrown out, and many of the losing Democrat incumbents were spineless jellyfish anyway.
So why did Prop 19 fail? It was doing great in the polls up until early October, and it seemed like a sure thing, with 52% in favor. But then the Governator took some of the wind out of its sails by signing into law Senate Bill 1449, effective January 1, which decriminalized (not legalized) possession of less than an ounce of ganja to a mere violation, making it a $100 fine with no court appearance or criminal record. It was formerly a misdemeanor, though the fine was the same. Next, the federal Drug Czar and the Attorney General were threatening to vigorously enforce the federal laws against cannabis if it passes, potentially upending the "truce" over medical cannabis since early 2009. Finally, the "No" side geared up and used ridiculous scare tactics in their ads, which unfortunately worked due to voter ignorance as well as vague language in certain parts of the initiative's text. And the two big sugar daddies for the "Yes" campaign (billionaires George Soros and Peter B. Lewis) did not donate anything until a week or two before election day, essentially too late.
One can only hope that things will go differently in 2012, when the demographics will be more favorable. But just don't number it Prop 19 again--it appears to be bad luck, just like it was in 1972. And any unnecessary or vague language in the initiative that appears to be the least bit overreaching should be nixed at once, as it appears to be "one toke over the line," so to speak.
The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.
UPDATE: After much vote tallying for the past ten days, it turned out that Arizona's Proposition 203 narrowly passed as of November 14. This makes Arizona the latest state to legalize medical cannabis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
